The fall of Clarendon had been succeeded by a Ministry well known in
history under the name of the CABAL.[562] With the merely
political conduct of the statesmen indicated by that word, we have
nothing to do; their policy in relation to ecclesiastical affairs alone
demands our notice.
A change of feeling in the upper classes towards Nonconformists ensued,
now that Clarendon's influence had been withdrawn, the virtues of
distinguished sufferers became better known, and rumours about plots
were far less frequent. This change prepared for a measure, which,
unconstitutional as to its basis, was liberal in its operation. To
found indulgence upon Royal authority alone, and not upon an Act of
Parliament, was in harmony with a scheme for the exaltation of the
Crown; but there is reason to believe that the measure proceeded, in
part at least, from the better side of the nature of the Ministers, as
well as from the better side of the nature of the Monarch. The previous
history of those Ministers had been such as to dispose them to befriend
oppressed Nonconformists.
[Sidenote: THE CABAL.]
The persons of whose names the initials made up the significant
appellation just mentioned, were Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham,
Ashley, and Lauderdale. The last three had themselves been more or less
connected with Dissenters. Buckingham, notwithstanding his irreligion
and profligacy, had sympathized with them in their sufferings; Ashley
had been a member of the Little Parliament, and a friend of Oliver
Cromwell; and Lauderdale had decidedly professed Presbyterianism.[563]
Memories of the past would dispose these politicians to be favourable
to their old friends. Clifford, who was rough, violent, ambitious,
unscrupulous, and yet brave and generous, and Arlington, formerly known
as Sir Henry Bennet,[564] a man timid and irresolute, had indeed no
such reminiscences as their colleagues, and had begun by this time to
veer towards Rome; yet, kindliness of disposition, which seems to have
belonged to both these statesmen, probably blended itself with some
design for promoting the interests of their adopted Church.
The Cabal Ministry determined upon a new war with Holland, for the
insults and injury inflicted by the invasion in 1666 could not be
forgotten, and the prosperity of a republic not far off, especially a
naval one, appeared odious to such Englishmen as desired alike absolute
monarchy at home, and an undivided sovereignty of the neighbouring
seas. To humble a commercial power like Holland, would also, it was
thought, improve British commerce; and of course a great victory would
strengthen both the Ministry and the Crown. The war with Holland began
in March, 1672, the advantage was on the side of England; and in
February, 1674, Charles informed his Parliament that he had concluded
"a speedy, honourable," and he hoped, "a lasting peace."[565]
[Sidenote: 1672.]
With a prospect of this war, the Cabal felt it expedient to conciliate
the Dissenting portion of the country, that there might be peace at
home whilst there was war abroad; and that the sympathies of those
who had before leaned towards the United Provinces, might be bound to
the interests of their own empire.[566] Prudence of that kind united
itself with whatever there might be of generosity in the Ministers who
supported the King's new measure; but it should be stated that at this
moment, when the Cabinet were looking one way, Archbishop Sheldon was
looking another. Whilst the chief Ministers of State were preparing
to show favour to the sects, the chief Minister of the Church was
thinking only of checking their progress; yet, to his credit it should
be noticed, that he appears, just then, as one who wished to promote
his object by means of education, for he strongly enforced the use of
the catechism;[567] but, to his discredit it must also be remarked,
that he still showed himself wedded to a coercive policy, by urging
proceedings against all nonconforming schoolmasters.
[Sidenote: DECLARATION OF INDULGENCE.]
Within six weeks of the date of the Archbishop's circular respecting
education upon Church principles, Charles issued his famous Declaration
of Indulgence. Lord Keeper Bridgeman refused to affix the Great Seal
to it, because, in his opinion, it was contrary to the laws of the
constitution; but Ashley, to whom the Great Seal was transferred, as
Lord High Chancellor, under the title of Earl of Shaftesbury, easily
supplied that important deficiency.[568]
"Our care and endeavours for the preservation of the Rights and
Interests of the Church," so ran the document, "have been sufficiently
manifested to the world by the whole course of our Government since
our happy Restoration, and by the many and frequent ways of coercion
that we have used for reducing all erring or dissenting persons, and
for composing the unhappy differences in matters of Religion, which we
found among our subjects upon our return. But it being evident by the
sad experience of twelve years that there is very little fruit of all
those forcible courses, we think ourselves obliged to make use of that
supreme power in ecclesiastical matters which is not only inherent in
us, but hath been declared and recognized to be so by several Statutes
and Acts of Parliament; and therefore we do now accordingly issue
this our Declaration, as well for the quieting the minds of our good
subjects in these points, for inviting strangers in this conjuncture to
come and live under us, and for the better encouragement of all to a
cheerful following of their trade and callings, from whence we hope,
by the blessing of God to have many good and happy advantages to our
Government; as also for preventing for the future the danger that might
otherwise arise from private meetings and seditious Conventicles."[569]
[Sidenote: 1672.]
The Declaration, after recognizing the established religion of the
country, directed the immediate suspension of all penal laws against
Nonconformists, and provided for the allowance of a sufficient number
of places of worship, to be used by such as did not conform. None were
to meet in any building until it should be certified; and until the
teacher of the congregation should be approved by the King. All kinds
of Nonconformists, except recusants of the Roman Catholic religion,
were to share in the indulgence, but the preaching of sedition, or
of anything derogatory to the Church of England was forbidden, under
penalties of extreme severity.[570]
How was the Declaration regarded? Politicians looked at the subject
from their own point of view; and it is curious and instructive to
consult a paper, written some time afterwards, in which answers are
given to legal objections against the measure. It is objected that
the King has not power to suspend the laws of the land, he being,
by his coronation oath, obliged to see the laws duly executed, and
not infringed. The reply is that the King has both an ordinary and
extraordinary power; and that, by the latter, he may mitigate and
suspend the enactments of Parliament, in support of which position
reference is made to the practice of the Roman Emperor, who dispensed
with the Imperial laws by tolerating Arians, Novatians, and Donatists.
[Sidenote: DECLARATION OF INDULGENCE.]
It is further objected, that the law against Conventicles had a penalty
annexed, which was to be paid, not to the King, but to the informer,
and therefore the King could not dispense with it. To this it is
answered, that the King's ecclesiastical supremacy being reserved by
the Act, such supremacy sufficed to authorize what he did in this
matter. But to give a more particular solution the writer says, "that
the Parliament, in spiritual matters, doth not act directly, as in the
making of temporal decrees, such affairs are not under their proper
cognizance by any law of the land. The Church, being a co-ordinate
branch with the temporality under the King, ruled by a distinct power,
and courts and laws, from the other. The which thing being granted, it
is clear that the Parliament, in ecclesiastical matters, doth act only
by way of corroboration of what is indeed enacted by the ecclesiastical
supremacy. And when the ecclesiastical supremacy doth take away the
subject of the temporal laws, the penalty (to whomsoever due) as an
adjunct, doth cease. Thus, the King is not properly said to dispense
with the penalty, but it ceases of itself, by virtue of the Royal
indulgence, the same power being recognized to be in our King, which
the Popes usurped here." This argument is followed up by a reference
to Papal supremacy, and the exercise of pontifical authority in the
toleration of Jews, Greeks, and Armenians in the Papal territories. The
objection, that such dispensing power is new in England, is disposed
of by the remark that the form is new, but not the thing itself.
Ecclesiastical laws had been frequently changed by proclamation in the
time of Henry VIII. and Edward VI. It being alleged lastly, that it
was unbecoming the wisdom of the King to annul his own acts performed
in giving the Royal assent to laws against Conventicles; the rejoinder
is, that the King did not annul, but only suspend his own act; and if
there be anything of weakness therein, His Majesty showed it in common
with Constantine, Valentinian, Theodosius, Gratian, and Charles V. Such
diversity of counsels appeared in all reigns.[571]
[Sidenote: 1672.]
Some Episcopalians were perplexed, of which signs appear in questions
proposed by Cosin, Bishop of Durham, to the clergy of his diocese.
They asked whether or no a subject was bound to comply with the
pleasure of his Prince in all cases, where he felt himself not bound in
conscience to the contrary: whether he might not comply, in many things
inexpedient, and even prejudicial, if the King pressed the command,
and there seemed no way to avoid it but by disobedience: and whether
he might not consent to the abrogating of penal laws in support of the
Church, rather than provoke the King's displeasure, upon whose favour,
under God, the clergy were dependent?[572]
Toleration did not meet the wishes of the Presbyterians; some of them
had refused it to others, and now they did not care to accept it for
themselves. Desiring comprehension--meaning by that "any tolerable
state of unity with the public ministry,"--they looked on toleration
as opening a way for the advance of Popery; and they believed that
wherever indulgence might begin, in Popery it would end. Further, they
apprehended that it would contribute to the permanence of Protestant
dissensions, whereas comprehension would unite and consolidate
Protestant interests: nor had they ceased to value parish order, and
to believe that such order would be overthrown, if people were allowed
to enjoy separate places of worship wherever they pleased. On this
ground the Presbyterians confessed themselves to be in a dilemma--being
forced either to become Independents in practice, or to remain as they
were, in silence and in suffering.[573] Some also objected to the
unconstitutional character of the King's proceeding, and looked upon it
as pregnant with political, no less than with ecclesiastical, mischief;
others, wearied with long years of persecution, felt glad to avail
themselves of liberty from whatever quarter it arose. It is probable
that some troubled themselves not at all with the constitutional
question; and it is certain that others, who did apprehend the
political bearing of the measure, and who also dreaded the progress of
Popery, considered nevertheless, that to avail themselves of a right
to which they were entitled on grounds of natural justice, was simply
reasonable, and involved no approbation of either the actual manner, or
the suspected design of the bestowment.
[Sidenote: DECLARATION OF INDULGENCE.]
The Independents, who had long given up hopes of comprehension, who set
no value on parish discipline, and who had only asked for freedom to
worship God according to their consciences, were, for the most part,
prepared to accept what appeared to them as a boon, without feeling any
scruple in relation to its political aspects.[574]
[Sidenote: 1672.]
The Court encouraged an approach to the throne of Nonconformists
disposed to return thanks for the indulgence. The Presbyterians came
in a body, headed by Dr. Manton, who, in their name, expressed hearty
gratitude.[575] Dr. Owen also presented a loyal address, in which he
expressed the joy of the Independents in declaring their loyalty; not
only as that loyalty rested upon grounds common to all his subjects,
but also as it arose from what His Majesty had just done in reference
to liberty of conscience. Owen humbly prayed for the continuance of the
Royal favour, assuring the King of the intercessions of Independents in
his behalf, that God would continue His presence to him, and preserve
him in counsels and thoughts of indulgence.[576]
[Sidenote: DECLARATION OF INDULGENCE.]
Applications poured in, and licenses were granted in abundance. Thomas
Doolittle, an eminent Presbyterian minister, obtained one; and for
years afterwards it might be seen, framed and glazed, hanging in the
vestry of the meeting-house where he preached, in Monkwell Street.[577]
Availing themselves of the Royal permission, several merchants
united in the establishment, at Pinners' Hall, of a Lecture, to be
delivered by select preachers, including Richard Baxter. Buildings
were constructed amidst the ruins left by the London fire, and some
arose on the other side the Thames. In the latter neighbourhood four
Presbyterians were licensed--one was in St. Mary Overy's, another in
Deadman's Place, St. Saviour's. Independents, Baptists, and others,
to the number of six, were registered for Southwark and Lambeth; some
only by name, others for specified places. David Clarkson asked leave
to preach in "a house belonging to John Beamish in Mortlake," to both
Presbyterians and Baptists; and several licenses were granted to other
ministers in Surrey. John Bunyan was allowed to teach a congregation
in the house of Josias Roughed at Bedford; and numerous individuals
and numerous dwellings in the City of Norwich were enrolled on the
certified list, as many as four different houses in one parish, besides
many more in other parishes, being enumerated. Oliver Heywood, "of the
Presbyterian persuasion," received permission to use a room or rooms,
in his own house, in the parish of Halifax, in the County of York;
and Philip Henry, of Malpas, Flintshire, notwithstanding his scruples
on the subject, accepted the same kind of permission.[578] These are
only a few instances, showing the variety and extent of the rescripts
which threw the Royal shield for a time over harassed Nonconformists.
As many as three thousand five hundred licenses are reckoned to have
been granted within the space of ten months. If it be supposed that
the places of worship then licensed were generally at all like chapels
in the present day, a most exaggerated and erroneous idea will be
formed of the extent of Dissent; in point of fact many of the places of
worship were but small rooms in private houses, within a short distance
of each other; nevertheless, there must have been a large number of
people professing Nonconformity, to require so many licenses; and it
should be remembered that a portion of the nonconforming class did not
feel prepared to accept liberty proffered in, what they considered, an
unconstitutional way. So formidable did the number of Free Churches
begin to appear, that one of the Bishops, writing to Sir Joseph
Williamson, exclaimed--"These licensed persons increase strangely. The
orthodox poor clergy are out of heart. Shall nothing be done to support
them against the Presbyterians who grow and multiply faster than the
other?"[579]
[Sidenote: 1672.]
[Sidenote: GRANTS TO NONCONFORMISTS.]
In connection with the indulgence and the thanks returned to the King
by the Presbyterians, Burnet relates that an order was given "to pay a
yearly pension of fifty pounds to most of them, and of a hundred pounds
a year to the chief of the party." He says further, that Baxter "sent
back his pension, and would not touch it, but most of them took it."
Burnet relates this on the authority of Stillingfleet, from whom he
received the story; adding, "in particular he told me that Pool, who
wrote the _Synopsis of the Critics_, confessed to him that he had had
fifty pounds for two years." The historian remarks, "Thus the Court
hired them to be silent, and the greatest part of them were so, and
very compliant."[580] It is remarkable, that though there are several
passages in Baxter's life, in which he mentions the fact of sums of
money being offered to him, and the way in which he treated the offers,
he makes no reference to any overture of pecuniary assistance from
the Court. Some reference to it we might have expected, had such an
overture been made; but that Baxter in that case would have declined to
accept any grant, is quite in accordance with his character, and with
his wish to be entirely independent of the King. Burnet's statements,
given on the authority of conversations held some time before, were
intended by him to be accurate, but they are not always reliable: in
this case, however, whatever doubt may rest on his statement as to
Baxter, there seems no reason for disbelieving what he says respecting
Pool. Dr. Calamy, from his intimate acquaintance with the events
of the period, would, we should infer, have been able to disprove
Burnet's statement, had it been altogether untrue; but Calamy does not
contradict the assertion as to the payment of money--rather he confirms
it. After quoting from Burnet, that "most of them took it," he adds,
"I cannot see why they should not;" he resents, however, Burnet's
remarks about the Presbyterians being silent and compliant;[581] but
he states in the next page that he was not forgetful of Dr. Owen's
having received one thousand guineas from Charles II. to distribute
amongst Dissenters; for the receipt of which he incurred reflections
afterwards, as Calamy thought, very undeservedly.[581]
There seems no reason to doubt that at this time the Crown rendered
pecuniary assistance to Nonconformist ministers, and that some of the
leading brethren acted as the almoners of the Royal bounty to others.
But, however the acceptance of it might be approved by some, it was
condemned by others; and it would, by the latter, be naturally enough
counted as "hush money;" that it really produced that effect, however,
there is not a single tittle of evidence, and in itself it appears
very improbable. Men who had resigned their livings, and all the
honours of the Established Church, for conscience' sake, were not
likely now to be bribed by an occasional remittance of a hundred or of
fifty pounds; in some cases the sum must have been much smaller.
[Sidenote: 1672.]
[Sidenote: QUAKERS.]
To this incident--in connection with the indulgence--may be added an
interesting episode, which in one of its particulars, falls into the
same connection.
After his romantic adventures at Boscobel in 1651, Charles reached the
little town of Brighthelmstone, and there engaged a fisherman to take
him over to the coast of France. The captain and the mate alone were
in the secret that the boat carried, not Cæsar indeed, but the heir of
England's crown, with all his fortunes; and when they reached their
destination, the mate conveyed the Prince ashore upon his shoulders.
The boat, in after days, when the Restoration had changed the destiny
of the Stuarts, lay moored by the stairs at Whitehall--a memento of its
Royal master's deliverance; and the captain, whose name was Nicholas
Tattersall, after having enjoyed an annuity of £100 a year, slept
with his fathers in the churchyard of the town in which he had lived,
and was buried beneath a slab of black marble, still existing, with a
scarcely legible inscription. The mate, who set the King on dry land,
and whose name was Richard Carver, became a member of the Society of
Friends. When nearly twenty years had rolled away, this transformed
mariner made his appearance one day in the month of January, 1670, at
the doors of the palace, and obtained admission to the King's presence.
Time, the rough wear and tear of a seaman's life, and the assumption of
a Quaker garb, had altered the visitor since His Majesty saw him last,
but with that faculty of recognition, which is a princely instinct,
he remembered the man at once, and reminded the sailor of several
occurrences in the vessel during his eventful voyage. Charles had been
annoyed by people who had shown him kindness in adversity, coming or
writing to Whitehall for some substantial acknowledgment of obligation,
and he wondered that Carver had not come before to ask for assistance.
In reply to some expression of that feeling, the Quaker told the King
that "he was satisfied, in that he had peace and satisfaction in
himself, that he _did what he did to relieve a man in distress_, and
now he desired nothing of him but that he would set Friends at liberty
who were great sufferers." Carver then proceeded to inform His Majesty
that he had a paper in his hand containing no names of Quakers, who had
been in prison above six years, and could be released only on Royal
authority. Charles took the paper, and said it was a long list; that
people of that kind, if liberated, would get into prison again in a
month's time; and that country gentlemen had complained to him of their
being so much troubled by Quakers. Touched, however, by the remembrance
of long gone years, whilst a gracious smile played on the flexible
features of his swarthy face, he said to Carver, he would release
him six. Carver, not thinking that the release of six poor Quakers
was equivalent to a King's ransom, determined to approach the Royal
presence again, and now took with him another Friend, Thomas Moore.
"The King was very loving to them. He had a fair and free opportunity
to open his mind to the King, and the King promised to do (more) for
him, but willed him to wait a month or two longer." What became of this
sailor, who nobly looked on the preservation of the King's life simply
as _relieving a man in distress_, we do not know; but Moore, whom
he introduced to the Monarch, continued to make earnest appeals to
Royalty on behalf of imprisoned Friends. In these attempts he received
assistance from George Whitehead--another eminent name in the annals
of Quakerism; and when, two years afterwards, there appeared the Royal
decree, which we have described, there also occurred the following
incident, which forms a notable link in a wonderful chain of Divine
providences.
[Sidenote: 1672.]
The King, who felt now more than ever a special regard for Quakers,
kept his word; and on the 29th of March, 1672, thirteen days after the
date of the Declaration of Indulgence, a circular letter was sent to
the Sheriffs of England and Wales, requiring from them a calendar of
the names, times, and causes of commitment of all the Quakers confined
within their gaols.
The returns from the Sheriffs came in due order before the Privy
Council in reply to the circular, when His Majesty declared that he
would pardon all those persons called Quakers then in prison for any
offence which they had committed against him; and not to the injury of
other persons: 471 names were included in the pardon.[582]
Whitehead, who co-operated with Moore, the friend of Richard Carver--to
whom he owed his introduction to the King--was a large-hearted man,
and when other Dissenters saw what he had done, and solicited his
assistance to procure the liberation of another class of religious
prisoners, he readily assisted, and recommended that they should
petition His Majesty; adding, that their being of different judgments
did not abate his charity towards them. The advice was taken.
[Sidenote: JOHN BUNYAN.]
John Bunyan, with a number of others unknown to fame, encouraged by the
Quakers, asked to be set at liberty. The document, containing this
prayer, came before the Privy Council on the 8th of May, 1672--and
on the 17th, Archbishop Sheldon being present, it was ordered that,
as these persons had been committed "for not conforming to the
rites and ceremonies of the Church of England, and for being at
unlawful meetings," and for no other offence, the Attorney-General be
"authorized and required to insert them into the general pardon to be
passed for the Quakers."
The pardon is dated the 13th of September; and second on the list of
sufferers in Bedford Jail appears the name of "John Bunnion," who
in common with 490 others, received forgiveness for "all, and all
manner of crimes, transgressions, offences of premunire, unlawful
Conventicles, contempts, and ill behaviour whatsoever."[583] Our great
allegorist owed his deliverance to the intervention of Friends; and we
do not wonder to find that afterwards an end came to those unseemly
controversies which had been waged between him and the disciples of
George Fox.